ART AS CONTEXT
It is not often that an artist is presented a situation in which the prerequisite is a relinquishing of privilege and the granting to others the power, equality and respect that is inherently their’s by the very fact of their being acknowledged as other. to truly acknowledge the dignity of another’s memory or cherished memento is no small act or feat. artists often speak of the sacredness of the quotidian or everyday, or one might say “praise banality,” yet all the while clinging to their own feeling of maintaining a privileged position within the heirarchy of values imposed upon culture. this attitude is perhaps inherent in duchamp’s conception of the readymade. yet though what an artist deems to be art may certainly be then considered art, this does not instill any greater value to the object than the value given to any cherished memento by any other person. even from an economic perspective, one might argue that an artwork has less value as it may be given a monetary value according to market concerns, while a cherished memento may be deemed priceless and not parted from at any price. or from another angle, as artworks have become more and more commoditized, this sense of intimacy, human scale and personal worth seem to have become increasingly diminished. technology has gained the upperhand (digital prints, image manipulation, projection, manufactured objects and installations, etc.) while the face of the other has retreated further and further into the distance, liberating the artist from moral obligation yet allowing the artist to retain a false sense of moral superiority.   

All this just to say that to provide a non-hierarchical framework or structure in which the contribution of any individual is publically ennobled and acknowledged for the inherent personal value it has been granted by each respective individual seems a truly worthy task, and not as easy as it might appear at first glance. yet this seems a natural progression beyond installation or site-specific art to what might be described as “art as context.”

“I really think art is basically a moral enterprise. And that the artistry, if you want to put it that way, is the beauty and completeness with which a moral position is asserted. But the very nature of this beauty is dependent on the moral position. [...] And I don’t mean this in a superior or self-righteous or any holier than thou ways, but almost primitively, as a kind of animal thirst for something solidly real. It’s directed to what one really feels and not to what one prefers to feel, or thinks one feels.”      (Robert Motherwell)

Here i must admit to my own incapability to read artworks beyond the literal artefact that is presented before me. In my infantile and literal perception an object remains just that “an object,” it contains or not its own logic and justifications. a bubble is just that – a bubble. a person’s cherished belonging or memento on the other hand is part of an entire personal history.  a photograph can be just that a photograph, however i would extend Cartier-Bresson’s comment that "There is something appalling about photographing people. It is certainly some sort of violation; so if sensitivity is lacking, there can be something barbaric about it" to include the photographing of any subject matter whatsoever. Which brings us back to Motherwell’s notion that at root all art is a moral act.   Though seen from such a perspective the bulk of contemporary art would seem to have eschewed any moral stance beyond the occasional rather superficial and trite politcally correct indignation whether in regard to politics, race, gender or whatever. But even in the instances where this is genuine and of import, we would seem to have succumbed to granting value only according to the titillation of the spectacle or extent of commodification within the marketplace, whether monetary or artistic  does not appear to matter as in both cases it remains a simple question of power and the heirarchies inherent within our cultural preconceptions.

I am sure you are wondering what this has to do with anything, if not having already simply dismissed me as a self-righteous moralistic crank bandying about passé ideals. So why have i gone to such lengths about this? It’s simple really, as the very concept of a participatory art as i understand it demands an open non-heirarchical structure which recognizes the inherent worth of any and every individual. This is not a question of theory but a direct engagement in concrete relations, and not in a gloss of unity such as “we are all one” or of multiplicity either with its inherently demeaning  “that’s your opinion, all truth is relative.” Which brings us to the realisation that the ethical is ontology, in simple terms all being, all existence arises out of an ethical relationship upon recognizing another. One does not need any intellectual or philosophical underpinnings to be an artist, but i do feel one needs a deep understanding and respect for others and the environment. And as my own life has repeatedly made apparent such understanding and respect can only lead to humility and openness.

return to index